Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 22 Jul 2002 23:11:10 +0200 | From | Kurt Garloff <> | Subject | Re: Patch for 256 disks in 2.4 |
| |
Hi Pete,
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 04:48:56PM -0400, Pete Zaitcev wrote: > > From: Kurt Garloff <garloff@suse.de> > > > > For those who do not follow, John Cagle allocated 8 more SCSI > > > disk majors. > > > > Have those officially been assigned to SCSI disks? > > So disks 128 -- 255 have majors 128 thr. 135? > > I do not understand what your problem is. Do you refuse to recognise > John as the LANANA chair or something?
Strange. I was just asking. Why would you think I would be silly and refuse to recognize somebody?
> My patch is done in accordance with this: > http://www.lanana.org/docs/device-list/devices.txt
OK, I should have checked there before asking here, probably.
> > SCSI disks connected. The patch does support up to 160 SD majors, > > though currently, it won't succeed getting more than 132 majors. > > That's wonderful, but we cannot ship that. There is no userland > support to create device nodes in dynamic fashion and to ensure > that they do not conflict.
There will be.
> This is why Arjan filed for and received > additional majors. Dynamic solutions need some time to float about > the community, I think.
I don't object to having some more static ones. Fewer users will need userspace tools for handling the dev nodes then ;-) And of course, I'll adapt my patch to grab the assigned ones before the unknown ones ...
> BTW, DASD does the same thing already. I never saw any memo or document > explaining how to use this capability properly. Perhaps SuSE people > support it. Kurt, can you tell anything about it?
I don't know much about DASD. They allocate block majors dynamically starting from 255 backwards as far as I know. So, dev nodes need to be created dynamically, I guess.
> > Do you have any idea why we can't just sync all mounted filesystems > > in do_emergency_sync()? > > DASD? LVM? EVMS? MD? Loop? NBD? DRBD? What's the rationale > > of restricting the sync to only IDE and SCSI? Deadlock avoidance? > > I suspect it is a deadlock prevention thing, too. I cannot say if > it ever worked satisfactory... :)
Well, Alt-SysRq-S does work; but it obviously misses to sync a number of filesystems.
> > I'm gonna post my patches tomorrow ... > > Thanks, that's interesting. Like I said, they are not likely to > get to the distro soon, but I'd love to look at them.
Well, I would be astonished if you adopted before we do ;-)
Regards, -- Kurt Garloff <garloff@suse.de> Eindhoven, NL GPG key: See mail header, key servers Linux kernel development SuSE Linux AG, Nuernberg, DE SCSI, Security [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |